Author
Topic: 24-70/4 MFT charts (Read 15846 times)

turtle

Radiating, have you used the new 24-70II that you suggest is a failure? I have and it is by far the best zoom lens I have ever used on any camera (then again I do not own the 70-200 L II). Expensive it is, but it is also breathtakingly good. it is every bit as good as the best L primes I have, yet all from a zoom.

The new 24-70 f4L is, IMO, a great walkaround lens for people who have a 70-200 F4 and do not need the overlap from 70-105. By offering higher IQ than the 24-105 and a smaller package, it would be more appealing to me for example (I have a 70-200 F4 L).

The 24-105 does not cut it in the corners at the wide end, but that might be because I am used to Leica, Zeiss and L primes for careful static work. The new 24-70 II is dramatically better and if the new f4 lens comes close to this, then it will be good news for those frustrated by the 24-105's corners.

I just sold half of my gear to pay for the 5D3. I was left with the 50 f/1.4, 100 macro, and 100-400. I've been using the 50 as my walkaround lens, and just love the IQ. I'm kind of spoiled by it.

So I'm in the market for a general purpose zoom, with a taste for quality (tough spot to be in, on a budget ). When I want wide, I've found, historically, that 24mm is usually just right for me. I was eyeing the 24-105 as a great range, but just a little put off by the not-quite-stellar performance at 24mm. I have a feeling I wouldn't be happy with the 24-105 on the wide end, and adding the 24mm f/2.8 IS kind of puts me close to the 24-70 II price range...

Enter the 24-70 f/4L IS. While not a bargain, it might be closer to what I have in mind, IQ-wise, and be a bit more affordable, cheaper and more convenient than other combinations I've considered. I'd still prefer a 24-105, but I'm also likely to take the IQ over the range. I'm waiting to see test results, including bokeh.

Judging by the MFT charts of the 24-70/4 - to be taken with a grain of salt as usual - we should see a marked improvement from the 24-105. At least comparatively at 24mm. Furthermore, at f/8 the new lens does seem to be on par with the 24/70 II. This should be good news to landscapers, isn't it ?

I had hoped, but at 24mm it actually scores a fair bit lower on MTF at the corners and edges than the 24-70 II 2.8 it looks like. Maybe it has field curvature or a sort that works out really well in the real world and it will do about as well anyway???

It certainly looks like it will show up the 24-105L for what it is, a very convenient and yet a lens that has IQ that is relatively whatever for an L.

But to be priced THAT much more than the 24-105 it sure would have been nice for the MTF to fully match the 24-70 II at the wide end.

I don't think so.Landscape photographers will usually want something wider? 16-35 maybe.They also won't need IS.I'm just curious what this lens was meant for, landscapes? Portraits? Walkabout? It just doesn't seem to fall in anywhere at that price.

Not necessarily. For many shots wider than 24mm is too wide. Many landscape shooters actually use a 70-200/300 at least as much as a 24mm prime or 24-70/105 sort of lens. I've never even gotten around to getting a wider than 24mm lens yet myself, although now and then it would have been useful.

IS would help for general shots and even for landscape for the times you are hiking with friends or simply want to see a lot of stuff and don't have time to use tripods non-stop and yet still want to get the best picks you can manage even though it's not a 100% ultimate dedicated picture taking outing, such scenarios can occur very often.

And the MTF makes it look a lot better than 24-105, which some have found disappointing, on FF, on the wide end when you want edge to edge crisp little landscape details. Many simply can't afford the 24-70 II.

Quote

For people who want the ultimate in sharpness, pay a little more for the F2.8 version

I may end up keeping my 24-70 II in part because of that.

Quote

If this lens was closer to $1k, i can see how it can be for people who want similar f2.8 performance at a fraction of the price. But at this price…it's a little out of reach for people wanting their first L lens and it's also not stellar to go for this instead of the f2.8.

It does seems a touch pricey since the MTF don't quite match the 24-70 II at the wide end.But maybe real world it will do as well?

Landscape photographers use whatever focal length is best for the scene in front of them. Contrary to popular belief, landscape photography isn't all about wideangle lenses. Landscapes can work just as well (or sometimes better) at medium to long telephoto as wideangle. I actually found my 17-40 too wide on full frame, for the type of landscapes I do and you start getting more problems with vignetting and even filter adaptors visible in frame the wider you go. While everyone is different and different people have access to different types of landscapes, there is no such thing as the perfect landscape lens, beyond the one you have with you. Don't make the mistake of thinking everyone is the same. That is one thing that I find frustrating about CR, there are many people that judge things from their perspective and fail to understand that not everyone has the same perspective. What may be the right camera or lens for one person is the wrong one for someone else.

Indeed. I'd bet that I'd need wider than 24mm for landscapes only 5% of the time, more likely only 1-2%.

Logged

canon rumors FORUM

The 24-70 f4 lens is being offered as the kit lens with a 6D at Camera Canada for $3299.00. $400 more than the kit with the 24-105 f4. I think the 24-70 will make a pretty good match for an advanced amateur camera. By adding a fast fixed lens for night shooting and perhaps the 70-200 f2.8 II as a future prize it could be a relative cheap way for amateurs to enter the FF market and have a system with fairly high IQ, admittedly with limitations.